Q. You’re an established industrial designer. Why the focus now on building design?
A. I’ve always taken a great interest in real estate; in fact, if I had more capital, I’d probably be developing a lot more projects myself. There’s also money to be made in real estate — much more than one can as a designer. [...]
Q. But you’re not a licensed architect.
A. I am doing 11 buildings in the world, but I don’t have a stamp as an architect and I wasn’t educated as an architect.
— nytimes.com
94 Comments
...all they care about is skimming their dues and fees off the top of our profession, rather than protecting our collective professional image and brand.
The AIA is wide open to your suggestions as to how to do this, the orange menace! Ideas? Shout them out, I absolutely promise you we'll listen!
"NCARB and the AIA - all they care about is skimming their dues and fees off the top of our profession, rather than protecting our collective professional image and brand."
Couldn't agree more. If architects spent less time "conceptualizing" and actually understanding the possibilities of building for people, then I'd see the point. Till then, it's just another tax.
Same challenge to you as to the orange menace, Thayer: how can the AIA "protect our collective professional image and brand" in a way that will directly benefit you? We're all ears!
Richard is George Post still alive?
^Orange, what injuries do our profession or the AIA brand suffer when a popular designer provides creative direction for a building? I don't believe the institutional backers of these condos have been deceived as to the work Rashid and his office provide, nor is there anything being done which seems likely harm the public.
A licensed architect oversees architectural projects for Rashid's office, and executive architects are completing the construction documents. This is a common and accepted arrangement. Not all architects are actually good designers, and this practice takes good advantage of the various specializations firms operate within.
Plenty excellent and licensed architects provide a sketch and go off to wine + dine clients while their associates and interns work things out. This is expected, and probably fine. Being in charge doesn't mean doing all the work oneself.
Sometimes I feel the self-appointed license police are architecture's equivalent of the anti-immigrant political groups: every problem in the profession gets blamed on "illegal outsiders" stealing all the good work. Nope, that's not what's happening.
Donna,
I don't think the AIA can infact protect our image and brand becasue we've tarnished it in the eyes of the public when we celebrate only the most provocative and radical proposals. It's not up to them to protect our image, it's up to us.
Like it or not, an architecture is conservative by nature becasue a building is supposed to last over time, and therefore the vicissitudes of fashion, where "radicalism" reigns supreme. That dosen't mean there can be no exploration, but that's usually not why clients turn to architects, again, becasue of the huge investment involved in architecture. So the values architects promote (great on paper) are simply at odds with the publics.
Recently, you spoke of an initiative to create a "practice" based degree as opposed to the current theoretical and conceptual based degree that so many schools seem to provide. I think it starts there, with architects actually being able to understand building when they get out of school. This way we can immediatly offer something productive to the builders who will inturn build our creations. When you have a body of knowledge that is valued by the society at large (like a Doctor), then I'd see a value in the AIA protecting an architect's turf. To quote you, "architectrure is a physical act", so why do many student leave school knowing next to nothing about the physical act of building? Because architectural education is broken. This guy would have been head of just about any class in architecture school, but becasue he comes from an industrial design background, everybody get's up in arms. Give me a break!
By the way, I love this back and forth. We may not agree but it certainly helps me understand the world of architecture that you inhabit as I hope to do for you. Maybe we can come to some understanding about the best way forward where all sorts of perspectives are allowed and appreciated.
+++ Thayer
This profession is more about protectionism than anything else, thus the typical reaction to the unlicensed. Which would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad - I've seem way too many licensed architects who are utterly fucking incompetent.
The AIA is not a brand, it's a good old boys club. Self-advancement is the rule.
Is this any different than zaha designing cars?
^well said.
I want well designed, affordable, fully disposable and recyclable architecture that is serial manufactured. I am sick of bad architecture you can't get rid of for a long time.
Firmness-commodity-delight is alright but it can be done out of cheap materials. We have the technology.
Pritzker medal should be made of aluminum.
Car designers aren't licensed, are they? No club owns car designership.
Is this any different than zaha designing cars?
To the extent that design is styling, no. But functionally yes, because of the licensing requirement for "architects" and the far superior analytical, problem solving and practical materials education that industrial designers receive.
The Pritzker should be abolished.
an industrial designer designed the pritzker.
Every single PoS in ToysRUs and the Hammecher Schlemmer catalog was designed by an industrial designer.
Miles,
All your good stuff is also designed by an industrial designer. There is no "Architects" that design industrial products by DEFINITION. A person can be an "architect" and an "industrial designer" but an "architect" can not be an "industrial designer" because an "architect" and "industrial designer" are occupational titles, each with a definition of that title.
^ Which doesn't account for all the architects who've designed furniture (or lighting, tea pots, housewares, etc.) or all the industrial designers (like myself) who design buildings.
One of the points of my comment was the ID has about the same quality rate as architecture, probably around 2%. Probably less if you think about while standing in a store.
I do like this term "anthropometric" never come across it before... from a quick look seems to be more prevalent in industrial design?
In terms of urbanism "The beauty of that is not only the eclecticism of the urban fabric" he isn't wrong (IMHO)!
You understand quality of mass produced components at the lowest price is probably going to be low, Miles.
The price of the material is low probably because its low quality. Most of the time, that is how its cheap. In addition, there is the foreign knock offs that substitutes higher quality components with lower quality components in order to lower the price level.
Mass commodity isn't always about the best quality. There is am economic equation regarding that.
One remarkable difference between Karim Rashid and any architects I can think of is that he presents himself to the world as a stud with his person something to be looked at and his sexual nature something to be considered. Are there any architect who presents their body in a sexual way like this? The only architect I can think of who comes even close is Eric Moss who presents himself in such a hyper masculine manner he is almost a Tom of Finland drawing come to life.
It is interesting to consider developers are responding to Rashid's sexual presentation of person and it sounds like he has more architecture work than his brother who presents himself in a more conventional for an architect asexual manner. Is there a lesson for us architects to be learned here?
haruki, I actually think that's a really interesting take on it. You're right that most architects - and I'm thinking specifically male - tend to present themselves as reserved intellectuals rather than hedonists. Or we find hedonism in minimalism - Mies' unadorned marble walls with their sexy, squirmy, sensual veins of pattern, but held in a strict frame.
Hmmmm, I like this line of discussion.
As I said earlier, Licensed Architects are dime a dozen.
uh, what about corbu painting in the nude?
90% +/- of the US building stock is NOT designed by an Architect.
Why are we fighting over Karim's 11 buildings? How did we let our opportunities to build the entire 100% shrink so vastly? We need to take back our domain! The fact is too few of us are sanctioned to do so - that's a problem.
The system has got to change to give significantly equal opportunities to more architects across the board. The potential work is out there, but the majority of us in the profession are powerless to obtain it, mostly because of the labyrinthine licensure process and misguided development policies.
The more of us with licenses the more equitable control and command of the built environment we will have in theory. As of today, we are too insular and too few in number to lobby for greater oversight of the entirety of the built world. Today, every single American licensed architect can fit in just one football stadium. In comparison there are 1.1 million (+/-) lawyers who've passed the bar and are allowed to practice (that's scary).
We must stop the subtle abuse of young emerging architects and give them the appropriate authority (based experience and education) to seek out independent work. The market will regulate and Fed/State laws/codes/insurance will ensure health and safety. No one will give a stadium to a twenty year old to design. But that same young person should be allowed to design a four story walk up. Or would you rather continue to let Mr. Crabtree "the friendly neighborhood developer" or any schnook with cash design 90% of everything in the built realm...
Equal opportunity? WTF planet do you live on?
Aside from that the vast majority of graduates are utterly unqualified to do any real work. Just look at some of the questions posted on this forum.
While I agree with the sentiment the problems are structural and endemic to the entire society. Which is one reason there are so many lawyers, which itself is another reason that society is so fucked up.
Architects aren't qualified to do anything coming out of school because the schools don't like practice and don't want to teach how to be a practitioner. Like take zoning for instance, something you don't really address in school at all because they teach (at least at my school) that it is just something you will deal with later and you shouldn't worry about right now and besides zoning may be the rules, but that doesn't make it good design, so that is how they teach it. I don't disagree. It is because of that thinking that I am helping influence a rewrite of zoning laws right now, which is awesome. If I had not been taught to question zoning laws, I couldn't do that.
The best way to learn is to do. So let's do let graduates start small, let's have them capable of doing a kitchen remodel or porch remodel or garage addition. I would have LOVED to have been able to do that right out of school and called myself an architect. My goal was to be self employed by 35, doing small architect jobs, mostly exempt stuff. Not everybody wants to be a corporate architect, some of us want to design those other 90% of buildings. Why give up 90% of the market? This is why I had to get out. I can't deal with this profession, it makes me sick.
^you can do that right out of school though. All of those small projects that you mention above are almost never designed by licensed architects. These small projects are exempt. In my state all sfr is exempt. There are "designers" doing concrete cantilever cliff dwellings. All commercial under 3000 ft.2 is also exempt.
By creating a system where one is not given idp credit for engaging such small architecture projects, or by working "outside the box" and engaging entirely new areas/markets, all we are doing is consequently creating "other" professions that will ultimatly compete for certain niche areas and likely win since we are not burdened by jurisdiction...In other words, as Mitchell said, we are narrowing the reach of the profession and losing areas of influence. I really do not understand why architects cant see this.
In my opinion, architecture is much more than just buildings over 3000 ft.2. And now more than ever, "architects" should be engaging all sorts of areas. Yes, of course they can regardless of title, but the current system compels some not to by penializing them with exclusion from the "community" that they worked hard and spent money to become part of.
Who do you think draws that developer's work? There are architects designing all sorts of stuff, but you wouldn't know it becasue they aren't taught how to design but rather talk about architecture. They draw what they're told becasue they need to buy some Christmas presents or pay off their cool condo. They have no way of dealing with the developer beyond a short order cook becasue they bring nothing of value to the table, namely becasue they've been told to disregard the real world issues until they are there.
Take the point about zoning. Of course it won't make a good design, but following it might, if one actually had practice dealing with these real life circumstances. Or one of my favorits is the program you are given in school. Those who "re-think" it are the ones who tend to be praised for "thinking out of the box". When they begin to practice, they are surprised that the 'box' is indeed real. So they laugh at those who are unable to see their vision and complain endlessly about how folks just don't get their genius. They artificially divide the world into those who "get it" and those who don't as if there where some genetic component that divided up smart people (them) from dumb people. How progressive.
The place to learn zoning is on a real project with a great mentor, which is how the system was designed to work, but firms treat interns like temp workers and pull them on and off projects according to what deadlines are approaching. With this piecemeal approach, interns have to take 8-12 years to put together all it takes to run a project.
jlax, I didn't have the skills to even put together a kitchen remodel when I graduated. Just didn't have any real world experience, I was too naive, had been in school, sheltered from everything non-academic. Needed mentoring. So I worked in corporate/boutique firms for 8 years to get some skills, do IDP and take the ARE. Once I got the experience and a few exams done I had to listen to my gut and it said I had no desire or need for an architect's license because stamping drawing sets was not as interesting to me as working with great people on cool projects, which is what I do now. It is a huge beautiful world outside the box. I like bringing my design skills to the people and not having to give them to the corporate arena and I am being rewarded, finally!
When I look at Karim Rashid the words stud and sexual definitely do not come to mind.
^ Why not?
It's time we replace NAAB accredited degree and NCARB with a new accreditation and redo the entire education, experience and exam process. This means, to be an approved accredited education, it must train and prepare students for professional practice because a professional degree is suppose to be education for training professionals to their professions. Heck, a computer science degree is more a professional degree for the computer professions than the NAAB degree is for architecture.
Frankly, architectural licensing was a bullshit requirements architects and AIA contrived up back in the beginning of the 20th century as a kneejerk response to public outcry over issues like the Chicago fire which was properly addressed (although not perfect but far better) when we created building codes than any occupational license.
Frankly, architects might have to take a serious look at architectural licensing and whether it is truly worth it and not get caught up in the "I had to do it so everyone else should" while at the same time making the path harder and more restricted.
If an architecture education is to be professional and worth a damn, the students better be prepared for employment. All 100% of them who obtains their degree should be capable of employment and certainly should be able to practice professionally on small structures.
If they can't then it is obviously not going to work and new ideas should be sought. Keep doing the same thing and expecting different results is sign of insanity, right?
The word "Queer" comes to mind but that isn't politically correct. Well, looking at the photo of him dressed in pink. Definitely not in a very masculine sense. It may just be how it all looks but okay. He may or may not be gay, bisexual, etc. I'll leave it at that. It just doesn't send that masculine / stud image in my mind.
BTW: tint, what do you do, now? Career-wise.
RB, I co-own an educational therapy company. I do freelance design too, but it is a hobby, I don't make money at it.
^it is 1 part speech/occupational therapy, 1 part special education, 1 part therapist. I do the admin stuff too, so another part small business person: bookkeeping, HR, marketing, web presence...
I'm already considering reactivating software development side of things for financial reasons because building design just isn't providing as stable of income as one would like. I doubt become licensed is going to make it all that much better other than just adding more project types opportunity.
Richard, whatever gives you a smile and makes you happy. By licensed, do you mean architect's license or building designer's license? I thought you already had the latter.
I was talking about architect license.
Whatever puts some cash in the pocket that doesn't to do does make life happier.
Just spotted on Twitter and even though it's silly gossip I just can't help myself because I truly appreciate Rashid's commitment to beauty: h/t to the brilliant Chepotle Guevara:
"karim_rashid @karim_design Feb 3
@Uber_NYC is a rip-off. yesterday i went across town (taxi ride is $12) and they charged 40$ plus $20 for bad weather = $60 + ugly dirty car"
^ And the driver got $3.50 including gas.
Ugh exactly Miles. Is that really how little Uber drivers make? I'm so skeptical of this so-called sharing economy.
.
Actually, Richard, "queer" is the new "n****r", at least in the rarefied air of academia. Queer studies, queer literature, you name it--is about as PC as it gets. Reclaiming the use of slurs is empowering, we're told. Unless you're straight, maybe... I get so confused.
Thank God there's smart people out there instructing us in these matters.
There are all kinds of problems with uber from driver abuse to no insurance or training to high fare and low pay to ducking liability for accidents to stifling media criticism etc., etc. but who cares, the company is valued at $18b.
Design doesn't matter. What matters is BRAND. When you look at any starchitect or star-designer, they are doing what is necessary to maintain their notoriety and maintain their brand - being a celebrity - and that is what gives them credibility in public discourse, not design accumen or deeply curated skills. This is why he gets an interview and the rest of us get to complain or cheer for their accomplishments and failures. Having that brand gives them the ability to do high level projects with high level clients. It isn't great design or great skills. Those help, but they are secondary.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.